4.3 Article

Pipeline embolization of MCA aneurysms in the M2-M4 segment: Dual center study and meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
卷 212, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.107063

关键词

Aneurysm; MCA; Endovascular; Flow diversion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Pipeline embolization for distal MCA aneurysms in the M2-M4 segments. The results showed that Pipeline embolization achieved a high rate of aneurysm occlusion (88%) with no clinical complications in our dual-center cohort. The meta-analysis demonstrated an overall aneurysm occlusion rate of 80% and a clinical complication rate of 9%.
Objective: Flow diversion of distal MCA aneurysms in the M2-M4 segments with Pipeline embolization device is promising, but further study is needed. Here, we seek to quantify the safety and efficacy of Pipeline embolization in the M2-M4 region in a dual-center cohort and comprehensive meta-analysis. Methods: Clinical and angiographic data of eligible patients was obtained from participating centers. A systematic review was performed with searches of Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles from inception to May 2021. 86 studies were identified in systematic review. Of these, 7 studies with 46 aneurysms met the inclusion criteria and were aggregated with 8 aneurysms from our dual-center cohort for analysis. Results: In our dual-center cohort, complete occlusion was observed in 88% (7/8) of aneurysms, and no patients experienced hemorrhagic or thromboembolic complications. Clinical outcomes were reported for 100% (54/54) of aneurysms included in meta-analysis and angiographic follow-up was available for 91% (49/54). The overall rate of complete aneurysm occlusion was 80% (95% CI, 69-91%), and the overall rate of clinical complication was 9% (95% CI, 2-16%). Conclusion: Pipeline embolization of cerebral aneurysms of the M2-M4 segments of the MCA was reasonably effective and safe in a small group of selected patients, but further study is needed to validate these preliminary results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据